Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:31360 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1808 of 2019 1 - Smt. Guddi Bai W/o Late Karmu Yadav Aged About 46 Years R/o Village Sarkhor, P.S. Kasdol, Tahsil And District Balodabazar Chhattisgarh, District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh 2 - Smt. Neera Bai W/o Late Mahettar Yadav Aged About 64 Years R/o Village Sarkhor, P.S. Kasdol, Tahsil And District Balodabazar Chhattisgarh, District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh Versus ... Appellants 1 - Hardeep Singh S/o Amar Singh Aged About 45 Years R/o House No. 17, Manifit Udiya Basti, P.S. Thelka, District Purvi Singh Bhoomi, Jamshedpur (Jharkhand) Driver And Owner Of The Offernding Vehicle Truck Trailer Bearing Truck Trailer Bearing Registration No. Nl-01-G 7769, District : Purbi Singhbhum, Jharkhand 2 - I.C.I.C.I. Lombard General Insurance Company Limited Jamshedpur (831001), District Jamshedpur (Jharkhand) Branch Office, Ground Floor, Commercial Building, Devendra Nagar Road, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh Insurer Of The Offending Vehicle, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Appellants
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. S.P. Sannat, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Animesh Pathak, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Amrito Das, Advocate S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Order On Board 08/07/2025 1. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that while passing the impugned award, learned Claims Tribunal has fastened liability to SHUBHAM DEY Digitally signed by SHUBHAM DEY 2 satisfy the amount of compensation upon the Respondent No. 2. As the Respondent No. 2 is represented by a counsel, this case may be heard finally at motion stage. 2. Submission of counsel for the appellants is not opposed by the counsel for the Respondent No. 2 with regard to the liability to satisfy the amount of compensation is upon the Respondents No. 2/Insurance Company. 3. On due consideration of the submission of counsel for the respective parties, appeal is taken up for final hearing. 4. This appeal is filed by the appellants/claimants seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal in its award dated 20.08.2019 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Balodabazar, District – Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 134/2018. 5. Facts of the case in brief are that, on 01.08.2018 at about 07:00 P.M., when Karmu Yadav (since deceased) was going towards his Village Sarkhaor from Village Kasdol on a motorcycle bearing registration no. CG 04 LD 1725, driven by Gangaram Sahu, at that time, the one Trailor bearing registration no. NL 01 G 7769 (hereinafter referred to as offending vehicle) which was being driven by the Respondent No. 1 in a rash and negligent manner, dashed Gangaram Sahu and Karmu Yadav and caused accident. In the said accident, deceased Karmu Yadav suffered severe injuries over his person and he succumbed to his injuries on the spot. Subsequent to the said accident, an FIR was lodged against the Respondent No. 1 bearing Crime No. 373/2018, P.S. Lawan, District - Balodabazar-Bhatapara for the offence punishable under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 3 6. The claimants in the claim application have pleaded that the deceased Jagat Sahu was aged about 43 years, working in a Poultry Farm and earning Rs. 12,000/- per month. The applicants/claimants are wife and children of the deceased, have lost their bread-winner in the said accident and claimed compensation of Rs. 17,10,000/- from the non- applicants before the learned Claims Tribunal. 7. The Non-Applicant No. 1 submitted reply denying the pleadings of the claim application. It was pleaded that the claimant failed to prove the nature of occupation and income of the deceased. Further, the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the of driver of motorcycle i.e. Gangaram Sahu and the offending Trailor was not involved in the accident. On the date of accident, the offending vehicle was insured with the Non-Applicant No. 2 and the Non-Applicant No. 1 was also possessing valid and effective driving license, therefore, the liability to satisfy the amount of compensation if any, will be upon the Non-Applicant No. 2/Insurance Company. 8. The Non-Applicant No. 2 submitted reply pleading that on the date of accident, the Non-Applicant No. 1 was not possessing valid and effective driving license, there was no permit as such, the vehicle was driven in breach of conditions of insurance policy, therefore, Non- Applicant No. 3 is not liable to satisfy the amount of compensation. 9. The learned Claim Tribunal upon appreciation of the pleadings and evidence held that the accident was a result of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by Non-Applicant No. 1. Deceased suffered severe injuries and succumbed to injuries. Taking note of the age mentioned in the documents computed and awarded Rs. 08,50,000/- as compensation to the appellants/claimants which has 4 been challenged in the present appeal by the claimants seeking enhancement. 10. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that though multiple ground have been raised in this appeal, however, he is pressing this appeal on the ground that the learned Claims Tribunal has erred in assessing the income of the deceased as Rs. 6,000/- per month only overlooking the nature of occupation as pleaded in the claim application and the date of accident i.e. 01.08.2018. He contended that even if the occupation and income of the deceased is not proved, then, the learned Claims Tribunal ought to have assess the income of the deceased taking note of the minimum-wages prevailing on the date of accident which as per the notification issued by the competent authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 would be Rs. 7930/- per month. He further contended that there are two claimants i.e. the wife and mother, however, the learned Claims Tribunal has awarded loss of consortium to the widow only and not to the mother of the deceased. 11. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondent No. 2/Insurance Company opposing the submission of counsel for the appellant/claimant submits that the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal is more than what the claimants are entitled for. The learned Claims Tribunal has added 25% of the income towards the future prospects to the monthly income of the deceased whereas, actual assessment in the facts of the case shall be 10% as the age of the deceased, assessed by the learned Claims Tribunal is 50 years. 12. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of claim case. 5 13. The accident and death of deceased Kamru Yadav is not in dispute. The liability to satisfy the amount of compensation upon the Respondent No. 2/Insurance Company is also not in dispute. 14. The first ground raised by the counsel for the appellant is with regard to the assessment of the income of the deceased as Rs. 6,000/- to be on lower side. Perusal of the impugned award would show that the claimants, except the pleadings and the oral statements of the witness has not produced any document with regard to the running of poultry farm by the deceased as earning Rs. 300/- per day. In the aforementioned facts of the case, the learned Claims Tribunal justified in assessing the income of the deceased on notional basis, however, the learned Claims Tribunal erred in assessing the income of the deceased as Rs. 6,000/- per month which in the facts of the case and considering the date of accident is less. 15. The learned Claims Tribunal has considered the employment of the deceased to be of Labourer, however had not considered the wages prevailing on the date of accident as fixed by the competent authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. In absence of any proof of income, the learned Claims Tribunal/Courts are required to take into consideration the factors like wage structure prevailing in the area, price index, cost of living or can take help of the wage rate as notified under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. There is no suggestive piece of evidence with regard to the prevailing of the wages on the date of accident and therefore, I find it appropriate to take the help of the minimum wages notified by the competent authority for that period. According to the notification issued by the competent authority prevailing on the date of accident for the period from 01.10.2017 to 6 31.03.2018, the wages for Unskilled Labourer under the ‘C’ Zone area is fixed as RS. 7930/-. Considering the place of residence, the date of accident and the notification issued by the competent authority, in the opinion of this Court, learned Claims Tribunal erred in assessing the income of the deceased as Rs. 6,000/- per month which is not sustainable and it is enhanced to Rs. 7930/- per month. It is ordered accordingly. 16. So far as the next ground raised by the counsel for the appellant that the learned Claims Tribunal awarded meagre amount of compensation under the head of consortium is concerned, the compensation awarded under the head of loss of consortium is well-settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680. However, in the latter decision in the case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuharu Ram, reported in (2018) 8 SCC, Hon’ble Supreme Court has further explained the types of consortium and held that there are three types of consortium i.e. spousal consortium for wife/husband, parental consortium to children and filial consortium to parents. In the case at hand, the Appellants No. 1 & 2 are wife and mother of the deceased and therefore, they are entitled for Rs. 40,000/- each towards loss of spousal and filial consortium (total Rs. 80,000/-). It is ordered accordingly. 17. The learned Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs. 15,000/- each under the head of funeral expenses and loss of estate which is in accordance with the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (Supra) and does not call for any interference. So far as the submission of the counsel for the Respondent No. 2 that the Claims 7 Tribunal erred in adding 25% of the assessed income towards the loss of future prospects which is on the higher side is concerned, there is no specific proof of the age of the deceased. The Claims Tribunal took note of the age as mentioned in the Post-Mortem Report (Ex. P/10) as 50 years. The age mentioned in the Post-Mortem Report (Ex. P/10) is not by applying the scientific method, but only looking to the appearance of the body or the information gathered from any person. Hence, the age of the deceased as mentioned in the Post-Mortem Report (Ex. P/10) cannot be said to be a conclusive proof. 18. Considering the object of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 as also, that the said Act is a beneficial piece of legislation, in the opinion of this Court, that addition of 25% of the income towards the loss of future prospects considering the age of the deceased in between 40 to 50 years does not require any interference. Therefore, the submission of the counsel for the Respondent No. 3/Insurance Company is not sustainable and accordingly, it is repelled. 19. For the foregoing reason, this Court proposes to recalculate the amount of compensation payable to the appellants. 20. Accordingly, the monthly income of the deceased is taken as Rs.7930/-. Upon adding 25% towards future prospects, total compensation comes to Rs.9912.5/- (7930 + 1982.5) and annual income comes to Rs.1,18,950/- (9912.5 x 12). After deducting 1/2th of the annual income towards personal and living expenses, annual loss of dependency would come to Rs.59,475/- (1,18,950 – 59475). By applying multiplier of 13, as applied by the Claims Tribunal, to annual loss of dependency, the total loss of dependency would come to Rs.7,73,175/- (59,475 x 13). Besides this, Appellant No. 1 is entitled for 8 Rs. 40,000/- towards loss of spousal consortium, Appellants No. 2 are entitled for a sum of Rs. 40,000/- towards filial consortium. Further, they are also entitled for Rs. 15,000 for funeral expenses and Rs. 15,000 for loss of estate as awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal. 21. Thus, total amount of compensation comes to Rs.8,83,175/- [7,73,175 (loss of dependency) + 40,000 (loss of spousal consortium) + 40,000 (loss of filial consortium) + 15,000 (funeral expenses) + 15,000 (loss of estate)]. Enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 8% from the date of filing of claim application till its realization. Rest of the conditions mentioned in the impugned award shall remain intact. 22. Any amount already paid to Claimants/Appellants as compensation shall be adjusted from the total amount of compensation as calculated above. Other conditions of the award shall remain intact.
Decision
23. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part and the impugned award stands modified to the extent indicated above. 24. Certified copy as per rules. Dey Sd/-d/--/-/--------/--/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge